Honda "Drive by Wire" question... what if the power goes out?

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:05:04 GMT "C. E. White" > wrote:

> Failure of the fly by wire throttle system is not more dangerous, or likely,
> than the failure of a traditional throttle cable (I've had two of those fail
> in my life). The most likely failure mode is the engine dropping back to
> idle. I feel certain that you'll be able to control the car if this happens.

Too many years ago (high-school years), I went to pick up
a friend to go to school. As I pulled into their driveway,
which was on an incline, I had to tap the gas pedal to
get up the driveway. I hadnt realized it, but one of the
motor mounts was broken, and when I tapped the pedal, the
engine twisted up on one side, "pulling" on the throttle
linkage, and thereby going wide-open-throttle. I immediately
locked the brakes and turned the key off just a couple of
feet away from their garage door

--
remove MYSHOES to email

"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> "Mike Romain" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system.
> >
> > The way I understand it, basically if the power fails when you are at
> > speed, you crash, just like on an airplane. I guess you could also put
> > your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye like they do on
> > planes too... ;-)
>
> The Civic drive by wire system is just for the throttle. If it fails, you'll
> just coast to a stop. You'll be able to steer just like most other cars can
> when the engine dies.
>
> Ed

So it is a misapplication of the drive-by-wire term to electronic
throttle control. Presumably something the marketing folks dreamed up.

Pete C.

"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> "the fly" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > "The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of development
> > to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic transmission --
> > computerisation of the automatic transmission has taken away
> > three-for-one in durability, dependability and cost of repair what
> > little it has given us. We know how to make steering systems that work
> > and essentially never give trouble. There is, therefore, no valid
> > reason for steer-by-wire."
>
> And what does this have to do with "drive by wire" throttle systems? The
> Civic does not have a steer by wire system.
>
> On the other hand, I do own two farm tractors that have drive by hydraulic
> systems. They have no mechanical link between the steering wheel and the
> front wheels. It is all handled by hydraulics. I had a line blow once and
> had to steer off the road with the brakes.....
>
> Ed

One of the times the split brake pedal is quite handy.

Pete C.

In article >,
"Elle" > wrote:

> "the fly" > wrote
> > This concern has been answered eloquently by a contributor
> to
> > these newsgroups a few years ago. Sorry I can't name the
> author, but
> > that person hit the nail squarely on the head with these
> words:
> >
> > ".........more importantly than that, you've got to have
> the
> > insight and wisdom to know when something has been
> developed to the
> > point where further development amounts to pointless
> engineering
> > masturbation.
> >
> > "The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of
> development
> > to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic
> transmission --
>
> Ya, so was the horse and buggy, the bicycle, etc.
>
> > computerisation of the automatic transmission has taken
> away
> > three-for-one in durability, dependability and cost of
> repair what
> > little it has given us. We know how to make steering
> systems that work
> > and essentially never give trouble. There is, therefore,
> no valid
> > reason for steer-by-wire."
>
> This reminds me of Bill Gates comment a few decades ago that
> no one should ever need more than 64k of RAM on his/her
> computer.
>
> What you quote is incredibly short-sighted. It demonstrates
> a lack of willingness to do any kind of investigation of why
> fly-by-wire was considered. In short, these are the words
> not of an engineer, scientist, or technical person but a
> ninny, and a ninny tired of having more demanded of him for
> his labors, at that.
>
> He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He should
> get out of the business or certainly never enter it.
>
>

Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit. Just do me a
favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that
deathtrap-looking-for-a-victim.

At least when something (Assuming it isn't a totally catastrophic
failure like a tie-rod snapping or similar) goes wrong, I'll be able to
wheel my poor obsolete "steered by a gear directly connected to the
wheels" rig to the side of the road as it coasts down from 50+. You, in
your "connected to the wheels by wires" steering vehicle are going to
continue hurtling down the road at whatever speed you were doing when
the system went Tango-Uniform, wondering which tree you're going to hit,
or embankment you're going to find yourself sailing over.

I want, and will settle for *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LESS* than *DIRECT*
mechanical or hydraulic control of all major vehicle functions,
particularly steering and braking. Something that works *NO MATTER WHAT*
in every situation short of total catastrrophic failure. I neither want
nor need some engineer's piece of software deciding "Oh, you're turning
too sharp - Obviously you don't mean that, so we're gonna do you a favor
and take it from "on the locks" to "just a little to the right", which
is what we're sure is what you actually intended.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

"C. E. White" > wrote in message news:Rtpff.1725 And
if you want reliability in a
> boat, a diesel seems like the way to go.
>
> Ed

I think this is pretty much true... Our survival craft in the North Sea had
diesel engines in the early
days. 'In theory' they would start without batteries, no ignition to
degrade, etc.

I see no real need for the system described here as drive by wire. It would
seem to add a layer
of complexity, and therefore potential failure, without offering any obvious
advantage.

"mst" > wrote
> Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating
> systems and the bloated software written by lazy
programmers.

Another short-sighted gent.

> wrote
> "Elle" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
> > What you quote is incredibly short-sighted. It
demonstrates
> > a lack of willingness to do any kind of investigation of
why
> > fly-by-wire was considered. In short, these are the
words
> > not of an engineer, scientist, or technical person but a
> > ninny, and a ninny tired of having more demanded of him
for
> > his labors, at that.
> >
> > He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He
should
> > get out of the business or certainly never enter it.
>
> We have been served up a lot of dumb ideas in the
past...ideas
> which were interesting, but not worth the cost and the
risk.
>
> I am sure we will continue to make firm advancements in
> transportation science. If Honda wants to spend the
money
> to offer a solution to a problem that does not exist, go
for it.

When someone posts a decent citation of whatever Honda is
proposing be flown-by-wire, then comment will be worthwhile.

To categorically reject change because the "current system
is good enough" is foolishness and demonstrates
obliviousness to the many points in automotive history when
of course the old way was "good enough," but the new way
yielded some advantage, so it predominated.

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system.
> >
> > The way I understand it, basically if the power fails when you are at
> > speed, you crash, just like on an airplane. I guess you could also put
> > your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye like they do on
> > planes too... ;-)
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> >
>
> Most of the fighter jets are fly-by-wire and they generally don't have
> problems with failures of this system. The fly-by-wire system is
> multiply redundant and rather expensive though. The main reason for it
> is the fact that it allows faster response and allows the computers to
> assist in stabilizing some inherently unstable aircraft designs.

The F-16 - Proof that even a brick will fly if you can cram a big enough
engine into it...


> In the auto world drive-by-wire would be constrained by the price points
> and the multiple redundancy would probably be sacrificed. At auto speeds
> the faster response of by-wire technology is not needed, so the only
> possible reason to use the more expensive technology would be to allow
> the computer to try to compensate for a drivers lack of skill.

Or more accurately phrased, to allow the computer to *ATTEMPT* to
compensate for what it *PERCEIVES* as operator inability.

When I turn the steering wheel, the wheels better move correspondingly
*EVERY* time. Not "just when the engine is on", not "When there's a
charged battery installed", not "When the computer thinks that what I'm
doing is OK", but *EVERY* *SINGLE* *TIME* *NO* *MATTER* *WHAT*. While
I'm behind the wheel, I will accept *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* less than
*TOTAL*, godlike control of that vehicle, subject to *NO* influences
outside of my own decisions and actions.


(By way of illustration, a few years ago in europe, a "fly by wire"
plane decided it knew more than the pilots - Pilots said "We gotta
hammer on the power and crank the bejeezus out of the controls so we can
lift, or we're gonna crash!". Fly-by-wire system said "Sorry, you can't
do that", and proceeded to "fix their mistakes" by throttling down and
not permitting them to crank the control surfaces to the needed degree,
which caused the plane to crash and burn. After something like that, I
can't see *ANYBODY* with a functioning brain-cell wanting anything to do
with getting into a machine that might decide at any time that what
they're trying to do is "off limits".)

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

"Don Bruder" > wrote
> Tell ya what, Ellie... You drive that "fly-by-wire" unit.
Just do me a
> favor: Warn me where you'll be so I can avoid that
> deathtrap-looking-for-a-victim.

Tell ya what, you give me a good citation on whatever Honda
is proposing be flown-by-wire, and I'll give you meaningful
commentary.

So far, I think people haven't any clue as to what's under
consideration here.

Don Bruder wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> > >
> > > I have always gotten a laugh out of such a foolish system.
> > >
> > > The way I understand it, basically if the power fails when you are at
> > > speed, you crash, just like on an airplane. I guess you could also put
> > > your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye like they do on
> > > planes too... ;-)
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > > Aug./05 http://www.imagestation.com/album/in...?id=2120343242
> > > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
> > >
> >
> > Most of the fighter jets are fly-by-wire and they generally don't have
> > problems with failures of this system. The fly-by-wire system is
> > multiply redundant and rather expensive though. The main reason for it
> > is the fact that it allows faster response and allows the computers to
> > assist in stabilizing some inherently unstable aircraft designs.
>
> The F-16 - Proof that even a brick will fly if you can cram a big enough
> engine into it...
>
> > In the auto world drive-by-wire would be constrained by the price points
> > and the multiple redundancy would probably be sacrificed. At auto speeds
> > the faster response of by-wire technology is not needed, so the only
> > possible reason to use the more expensive technology would be to allow
> > the computer to try to compensate for a drivers lack of skill.
>
> Or more accurately phrased, to allow the computer to *ATTEMPT* to
> compensate for what it *PERCEIVES* as operator inability.
>
> When I turn the steering wheel, the wheels better move correspondingly
> *EVERY* time. Not "just when the engine is on", not "When there's a
> charged battery installed", not "When the computer thinks that what I'm
> doing is OK", but *EVERY* *SINGLE* *TIME* *NO* *MATTER* *WHAT*. While
> I'm behind the wheel, I will accept *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* less than
> *TOTAL*, godlike control of that vehicle, subject to *NO* influences
> outside of my own decisions and actions.

Indeed, one of the reasons I demand a manual transmission.

>
> (By way of illustration, a few years ago in europe, a "fly by wire"
> plane decided it knew more than the pilots - Pilots said "We gotta
> hammer on the power and crank the bejeezus out of the controls so we can
> lift, or we're gonna crash!". Fly-by-wire system said "Sorry, you can't
> do that", and proceeded to "fix their mistakes" by throttling down and
> not permitting them to crank the control surfaces to the needed degree,
> which caused the plane to crash and burn. After something like that, I
> can't see *ANYBODY* with a functioning brain-cell wanting anything to do
> with getting into a machine that might decide at any time that what
> they're trying to do is "off limits".)

You're partly confusing two different things, the fly-by-wire i.e. no
mechanical link, and an automated control system. Not really the same
thing although the fly-by-wire makes implementing the automated control
easier. If it's a simple electronic replacement for a mechanical link
(with suitable redundancy) it's ok with me. Automated control trying to
second guess my decisions based on far less sensory input than I have,
is not ok with me.

The hydraulic steering on a lot of tractors and construction equipment
that was noted by another poster is a good example of basic fly-by-wire
or in this case fly-by-oil technology. It makes no attempt to second
guess the operators decisions and simply replaces what could be a very
complex mechanical linkage with a couple of nice flexible hoses.

The hydraulic brakes in cars is another even earlier example.
Brake-by-oil basically, and we still require the mechanical cable
operated backup system in addition to the split hydraulic redundancy. Of
course in recent years they've added the automated control a.k.a. ABS to
try to second guess the operator.

Pete C.


>
> --
> Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
> or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
> somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
> ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info